wait, this can't be right! "natural cyclical cooling"....sounds like a conspiracy theory to me! the world is going to end in 12 years so i don't buy it!

Quote

Big U-turn: Key melting Greenland glacier is growing again

A major Greenland glacier that was one of the fastest shrinking ice and snow masses on Earth is growing again, a new NASA study finds.

The Jakobshavn (YA-cob-shawv-en) glacier around 2012 was retreating about 1.8 miles (3 kilometers) and thinning nearly 130 feet (almost 40 meters) annually. But it started growing again at about the same rate in the past two years, according to a study in Monday’s Nature Geoscience . Study authors and outside scientists think this is temporary.

“That was kind of a surprise. We kind of got used to a runaway system,” said Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland ice and climate scientist Jason Box. “The good news is that it’s a reminder that it’s not necessarily going that fast. But it is going.”

Box, who wasn’t part of the study, said Jakobshavn is “arguably the most important Greenland glacier because it discharges the most ice in the northern hemisphere. For all of Greenland, it is king.”

A natural cyclical cooling of North Atlantic waters likely caused the glacier to reverse course, said study lead author Ala Khazendar, a NASA glaciologist on the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) project. Khazendar and colleagues say this coincides with a flip of the North Atlantic Oscillation — a natural and temporary cooling and warming of parts of the ocean that is like a distant cousin to El Nino in the Pacific.

The water in Disko Bay, where Jakobshavn hits the ocean, is about 3.6 degrees cooler (2 degrees Celsius) than a few years ago, study authors said.

Can you go ahead and define climate for me? I'm going to drive up to downtown LA and play in the snow for a bit while you figure it out.

I will let the Encyclopedia Britannica do it:

Quote

Adding confusion to the politics of climate change and global warming in the press is the assumption that the terms weather and climate are at some level interchangeable. The two terms are confused with one another, presumably because the same elements (solar radiation, temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction, precipitation, etc.) make them what they are, but there is more to the story. The main difference between weather and climate is duration. Weather and climate relate to one another in much the same way that an inning in a baseball game compares with the whole game.

The weather is the set of conditions in the atmosphere in one location for a limited period of time—such as throughout the day, at night, or at any particular point during the day. When your local meteorologist says that today will be partly sunny and 80 ⁰F with 10-mile-per-hour southwesterly winds and high humidity, he or she is talking about the weather conditions for some portion of a given day. Climate, however, describes the average condition of the atmosphere over a long period of time, such as across spans of 30 years or more, for a given location. Moreover, weather conditions change from hour to hour and even moment to moment for a single point, neighborhood, town, or city on Earth’s surface. Climate conditions, on the other hand, are far less volatile, and they are often used to describe larger areas—such as parts of countries, whole countries, or even groups of countries.

Climate conditions also differ between one part of the planet and another. We know that Africa’s Sahara has a much hotter and drier climate than South America’s Amazon River basin and Alaska’s rocky coast. The forces that shape the atmospheric conditions in each of these parts of the world are vastly different. In the Sahara, high pressure combined with its tropical location allows for more solar radiation to reach the ground and heat it throughout the year. In contrast, the conditions of Alaska’s Pacific coast are governed by the region’s proximity to the ocean, its subarctic location, vast differences in the number of daylight hours between summer and winter, and warm ocean currents that circulate nearby.

It’s easy to see why people who equate weather with climate might not see the problem of climate change as a big deal, since the weather is always changing. When climates change even slightly, however, the consequences can be much more severe than an afternoon of inclement weather. In the wild, specialized plants and animals that have evolved to adapt to one set of climate conditions face the challenge of being thrust suddenly into conditions that do not suit them. In the human sphere, once-predictable climate conditions become more volatile, and crop yields decline because of increased risks from unexpected flooding, drought, or the effects of unseasonable cold snaps.

Why would they plunk down $15 million on 26 acres of water front property that they KNOW will be under water in just 12 years? They should just keep renting it then buy the lot inland and move there when the tide comes in...they need better advisers.

A look inside the Martha’s Vineyard mansion the Obamas are reportedly buying

ormer president Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, are reportedly in escrow for a $14.85 million mansion on Martha’s Vineyard.

And not just any mansion — the one belonging to Celtics co-owner Wyc Grousbeck, which the Obamas rented out for their island vacation this August.

Grousbeck has been looking to unload his home for quite a while: It’s been on the market for four years.

it's never been about the climate and what effect we may or may not be contributing. it's about creating a narrative and painting a "bad guy" as someone who, "doesn't want to save the only planet we have." how could those on the right be so evil as to poison our air and our water and increase the temperature to make life uninhabitable in antarctica?

case in point, your daily does of fake news and fake outrage

Quote

Fake Amazon rainforest fire photos are misinforming on social media

BRAZIL — Social media helped increase coverage of the wildfires, but it’s also contributing to misinformation.

Yes, there is are real fires happening in the Amazon rainforest, and humans are likely the cause of the blazes. But yes, there are also a lot of the photos being shared are either old photos of past Amazon fires or photos of different fires faked to look like its in the Amazon.

In Brazil alone, there are 80% more fires in 2019 than there were last year, according to the country’s space research center. More than half of the fires in Brazil are in its Amazon region.

Satellite images are helping show just how many fires there are, and how much of their smoke has spread across the country.

But photos on social media are conflating the current crisis with previous fires.

One such photo — one of the most-shared photos on social media — shows a lush forest with a massive wall of smoke billowing from a fire.

Musical artist and actor Jaden Smith shared the image on his Instagram, where it garnered over a million likes. YouTube celebrity Logan Paul shared the image on Twitter, too.

Yes, the image shows the Amazon rainforest in Brazil. But it’s not of the current fires. It’s more than 20 years old: the Guardian, which republished the photo in 2007, says it was taken in June 1989.

Entertainment sites like 9gag and UNILAD both are running the photo on their websites. Their social media posts prominently featuring the photo have tens of thousands of shares.

Another photo making the rounds on social media claims to also show the Amazon rainforest on fire.

Leonardo DiCaprio shared it on his Instagram and it has over 3 million likes.

Even the Rainforest Trust, which is asking people to donate to help stop deforestation, shared it on its Twitter account.

But it’s definitely not showing the current fires in the Amazon. CNN found it on a website published in 2018.

Actor David Licauco shared four photos — all of which are not of the current wildfires in the Amazon. Two aren’t even of an Amazon wildfire. The top image is from a 2018 wildfire in Sweden; the bottom is of a wildfire in Montana on August 6, 2000.

The most heartbreaking photos being shared are the charred remains of animals, or animals attempting to escape wildfires. Blogger Nathalie Muñoz posted a series of photos about the Amazon rainforest fires.

The photo of the monkey crying, holding a smaller monkey, isn’t in the Amazon. It was taken in Jabalpur, India, by Avinash Lodhi sometime in April 2016. And the photo of the burned rabbit is from the 2018 wildfire in Malibu, California.

Not only did the court grant Ball’s application for dismissal of the nine-year, multi-million dollar lawsuit, it also took the additional step of awarding full legal costs to Ball. A detailed public statement from the world-renowned skeptical climatologist is expected in due course.

This extraordinary outcome is expected to trigger severe legal repercussions for Dr Mann in the U.S. and may prove fatal to climate science claims that modern temperatures are “unprecedented.” (snip)

Bernie Sanders: Abortion And Population Control Are Important Parts Of Addressing Climate Change

Presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders answered "yes" and spoke about abortion when asked at a CNN town hall event Wednesday night if population control would play a part in his administration's policy for dealing with climate change.

"Human population growth has more than doubled in the past 50 years. The planet cannot sustain this growth. I realize this is a poisonous topic for politicians, but it's crucial to face," an audience member asked. "Empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact. Would you be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?"

"The answer is yes," Sanders responded. "And the answer has everything to do with the fact that women in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies and make reproductive decisions."

Bernie Sanders: Abortion And Population Control Are Important Parts Of Addressing Climate Change

Presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders answered "yes" and spoke about abortion when asked at a CNN town hall event Wednesday night if population control would play a part in his administration's policy for dealing with climate change.

"Human population growth has more than doubled in the past 50 years. The planet cannot sustain this growth. I realize this is a poisonous topic for politicians, but it's crucial to face," an audience member asked. "Empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact. Would you be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?"

"The answer is yes," Sanders responded. "And the answer has everything to do with the fact that women in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies and make reproductive decisions."

Söderlund spoke on the topic, "Can you Imagine Eating Human Flesh?" He argued for breaking down the ancient taboos against desecrating the human corpse and, well, cannibalism. The clip is available on State Swedish Television channel TV4 at this link. The end of the video's description roughly translates to "the possibility of eating human flesh - to save the climate." How cannibalism would have any impact on the climate is anyone's guess, and it seems the professor is more focused on dealing with the aftereffects of climate change, anyway.

According to The Epoch Times, Söderlund dismissed taboos against cannibalism as "conservative." He suggested that people's resistance to eating human flesh "could be overcome, little by little, beginning with persuading people to just taste it." In the video, he warned "that since food sources will be scarce in the future, people must be introduced to eating things they have thus far considered disgusting—among them, human flesh."